Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comandante

This RfC is closed. Do not add more comments to it. Fred-Chess 03:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: --, -- (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

(Comandante | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

For over seven months, Comandante (talk · contribs) has been waging aimless edit wars on Fidel Castro and other related articles, usually dealing with history. He is clearly driven by a pro-Communist agenda. He rarely, if ever, consults other editors before making his edits. He has been banned many times before because of the 3RR but continues to make periodic waves of often-inaccurate and propaganda-driven edits.

Restrictions on his edits are in order. Further, administrators must watch his activity with sockpuppets. In the past day, he has been using a different username The Decay of Meaning (talk · contribs) and editing with different anonymous IP addresses in order to circumvent the 3RR.

Description

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

See my view below. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bletch 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SYCTHOS ^talk 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Comments

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside Comment by OnceBitten

While I see that this RfC has received two users who certified the RfC, I don't see where they have really documented the challenges that they face with the RfC subject, but have instead cast a broad net. I'd like to see links to specific reverts and examples of the "aimless edit wars". In other words, I'd like to see some of the evidence in order to be fair to the other side in the RfC, and form an opinion on the claims made against them. # (sign with ~~~~)

OnceBitten 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Comment by McClenon

On the one hand, this is not a satisfactory user conduct RfC. It does not document any specific revert wars.

On the other hand, it does appear from the history that the editor in question is revert warring. In particular, he has deleted repeated references to human rights violations by Castro, stating that he is deleting POV. Whether Castro has violated human rights is POV. The fact that numerous organizations, some of them respected, have alleged human rights violations is not POV, but a fact. It is true that the editor in question is ignoring discussions on the talk page. I think that he needs to discuss changes rather than to engage in revert wars.

Robert McClenon 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Katefan0

I've only had one significant run-in with Comandante, but it wasn't particularly pleasant. Since that time (Oct. 1), I have watched his edits and judge them to display the same issues that arose the first time I had occasion to cross his path.

I can't remember now what brought him to my attention, but it was probably a report on WP:AN/3RR. He had violated 3RR, and because I wasn't sure that he knew what WP:3RR was, I simply warned him on his talk page [1]. His response was to delete my comment [2]. I asked him to please not remove such comments [3] and his response was to remove them again [4]. Subsequently he violated 3RR again, for which I blocked him [5]. (He then erased my explanation of his block [6]).

This has been a pattern as is readily apparent when viewing his talk page history. Other examples: [7]. [8]. In fairness, however, he seems to erase even innocuous messages, so he may simply prefer erasing messages once he's read them, like a person might do with email. However, it's clear that erasing administrator warnings even after having been asked not to do so -- regardless of his preferences -- is questionable.

It's my opinion that Comandante has flagrantly flouted Wikipedia's rules and conventions, edit warred incessantly, ignored consensus and refused to talk under most circumstances. Interiot's new tool [9] shows that Comandante has made more than 700 edits to articles (mostly having to do with Cuba) and just 15 to article talk pages. Because he has essentially refused to talk in most circumstances, I am not sure what good this RfC will do in affecting behavior changes, but I remain hopeful.